The ethical non-monogamy community

The ethical non-monogamy community September 2, 2016

Carl Trueman reflects on an interview with a member of “the ethical non-monogamy community.”  That is, a married mother who has sex with men she isn’t married to and who argues that her promiscuity is good for her children because it makes her a better mother.  (Should this be another protected sexual identity?)

She claims to be “sex positive”–that is, that she has a positive attitude towards sex–but Prof. Trueman shows that she is really “sex negative.”

From Carl R. Trueman, Sex Negative | First Things:

The attitude toward sex in our secular culture is simultaneously tedious and disturbing. Tedious because of its predictability. Disturbing because of its profound negativity, despite absurd claims to the contrary.

A good example was provided last week by Aimee Byrd. Over at her Housewife Theologian blog, Byrd highlighted an online interview with a woman called “Gracie X.” The lifestyle Gracie describes will probably surprise no one. Her promiscuity and the fluidity of her relationships are nothing new. In the ’70s, people like Gracie were known as swingers. Today they are respectable members of the “ethical non-monogamy community.” The nomenclature is oxymoronic, the underlying attitude merely moronic.

As is conventional when today’s hard-hitting journalism deals with fringe lifestyles that mock traditional mores, the interviewer asks no hard questions and makes no critical observations. Such would be impolite and judgmental, I guess. Well, let me break once again with the contemporary canons of journalistic social commentary and offer a few impolite and judgmental observations of my own.

The language of the interview is revealing. The omnipresence of the first-person singular is quite remarkable, reminiscent of The Beatles song, “I, Me, Mine.” Yes, this really is all about Gracie. To be fair, she does claim that her refusal to control her libido is good for her children—but she also makes it very clear that even if they asked her to stop, she would not, because she is her lifestyle.

The best parts of the interview are those involving pious sub-Oprah psychobabble, such as this gem: “The biggest burden you can put on your child is an unfulfilled life. We really have to make sure we’re living.” Really? I suspect the burden of not having any kind of stable parental relationship to rely on might rank somewhere. But as long as a mature ten- to eleven-year-old is able to offer wise and informed support to an ethically non-monogamous parent, all will be well.

Most sadly disturbing is Gracie’s use of the term “sex positive” to describe her lifestyle. Clearly she enjoys sex. But that hardly amounts to being “sex positive.” Her view of sex seems so truncated and so emptied of any real meaning, so centered on herself, so reducible to physical pleasure, that it becomes little more than an act of mutual masturbation. To say that such represents a “positive” view of sex is akin to saying that the person who enjoys cluelessly bashing out random notes on a piano has a positive view of music.

[Keep reading. . .]

"A "day" is a a 24-hour period in the same way that a piece of ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"Interesting... no, wait, was this the site where I said that Genesis was poetry not ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"You are not focusing of how time works and what it is. It all depends ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"God created in a period of time equal to six 24-hour days, each of which, ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”

Browse Our Archives